More on the flip.I love DailyKos, and 9 times out of 10 I agree with much of what he says. However, regarding the environmentalism "brand" he discussed yesterday, he is completely and utterly wrong. There is nothing wrong with the environemntal "brand." Is it damaged? Yes, but it is damage done by us. We Democrats have damaged the environmental brand. Last I checked, groups like NRDC and the Sierra Club were doing just fine in terms of membership and outreach development. NRDC has grown considerably since its formation in 1971, same with Sierra Club. Their budgets have grown, their base increased, and their ideas and solutions regarding global warming, alternative energy, and public health have been placed in the public's conscious. Most Americans identify themsevles as environmentalists, or they see themselves as sharing the same core values environmentalists have.
How is it possible then that the brand "environmentalism" is damaged? It seems the environmentalists have succeeded in getting people to talk about clean water, clean air, biofuels, safe energy, and corporate accountability regarding pollution.
My guess is Kos feels the enviro brand is damaged because they haven't "won" anything. If so, I'm a little puzzled for the simple fact that environmentalists don't have a political party to call their own. Corporate America, the longtime adversary of the enviro movement, has always had the Republican party in its corner. They can dump tens of millions of dollars into lobbying against environmental regulation, corporate pollution accountability, and campaigns against fuel effeciency. For enviros, to get anything done politically, they have had to turn to the Democrats. Of course, many enviros vote Democrat or Green, but those that do vote holding their nose (especially when they vote Democrat). Perhaps it is because the Democrats receive the same corporate funds from polluters like Monsanto, Tyco, and GE that Republicans do. Perhaps Democrats don't feel that running a "pro-environment" ticket will win, haunted by images of Jimmy Carter losing to an absent-minded actor in 1980. Whatever the case, it seems to me the failure of the environmental movement has less to do with environmentalists than it has to do with Democrats not adopting a clear, focused message that contrasts with the corporate-owned Reublican party.
Now, before I continue, I want to make clear that I am not some whiny enviro complaining that Democrats aren't adopting my "pet issue." I'm no selfish, single-minded liberal blinded by my own particular interests, saying "to Hell with your shit!" or "it's the environment, stupid!" I'm a life long Democrat raised by a life long Democrat. My father loved the Democratic party right up until his untimely death ten years ago. He believed in its core values even during a time when the party was questioning itself (1970s-1980s). All the while, one of the main values he believed in, a value that seemed consistent in the party, was the belief that clean natural resources improve public health. My Dad was an environmentalist, and a Democrat. I'm an environmentalist, and a Democrat.
The problem the last twenty-five years stems from the fact that we, as Democrats, have shunned the environmental movement. Yes, we have. Don't try and deny it. Don't give me some half-brained excuse as to why the Democrats haven't put forth a cohesive, understandable stance on the environment since the days of Jimmy Carter. I ask you right now, without going to the DNC site, what is the Democrat party's stance on the environment?
Think about it for a second.
See what I mean? Now, I'll post for you exactly what the DNC site says about the environment. Here it is:
Yep, that's right. Nothing. Nadda. Zilch. They have a PDF file with the 2004 party platform, a document I'm having trouble opening. Not good. Nothing ON the site. Nothing. Now, I head over to our friends at the RNC site, and look what I find:
I think you see my point.
Because the Democratic party has been unable or unwilling to define an environmental policy, we've allowed corporate Republicanism to slime the word "environmentalist" just as we allowed them to slime the word "liberal." This is why I feel Kos's stance on the environmental brand to be utterly wrong. Because we've allowed Republicans to damage the word means we should abandon it, or change it to "conservationism." Why we haven't adopted a policy around the values of the environmental movement is completely beyond me. It is a major core value of this party, whether we like it or not. It is a major core value for most Americans, including Americans that identify themselves as Republicans.
A Pew poll last month showed that one of the major rifts in the Republican Party is the environment.
Interesting. It seems that a very narrow group of corporate thugs are able to convince environmentally conscious Republicans that the Rethug party is best when it comes to protecting our natural resources. How are they able to do this? Maybe it's because their message is more fine tuned than ours. Maybe it's because they've managed to out spend and out maneuver the enviro groups at the local, state, and federal levels.
Or maybe it's because the Democrats have simply not gotten their act together and fully embraced the core values (an excellent term Kos has latched onto) of the environmental movement into a clear message. It's important to note that all the values the enviro movement holds dear can be framed and articulated into a clear message that connects to other values that hit home with Americans living in the South, the Midwest (where I was born and raised), and the Rocky Mountain West.
The ability to tie environmental values into something like foreign policy opens up a variety of clear and powerful messages Democrats can and should latch onto. Grist magazine last month talked about it in more detail. The bottom line here is the environmentalist "brand" is not damaged because environmental protection is a value shared by many Red and Blue Americans. Even if it were partisan, since when did it become the norm here to bow to Republican lexicons? If "environmentalism" is damaged, then I guess we should stop calling ourselves "liberals" or "progressives" because if you think the word "environmentalist" has been slimed, those words in Red America label you a traitor and a hater of America. Isn't accepting your opponent's definition of you defeat? Isn't stength saying "Fuck you, Rethug hack! I'm an enviro that believes healthy natural resources makes healthy citizens. Kos is wrong to think that changing the name will solve the problem. We Democrats are environmentalists. That is what we are and there is no changing that. Instead of trying to change the word, why not simply embrace the values and construct a clear message that Red America can understand and identify with. Peace... in Iraq.